Why were Indian peasants sometimes labeled prepolitical by earlier historians?

Earlier historians, particularly those working within Marxist frameworks, often labeled Indian peasants as "prepolitical" because their collective actions and social organizations did not align with European conceptions of political engagement.1

These historians viewed political agency through the lens of Western political thought, which prioritized concepts such as sovereignty, rights, and class-based interests. Because Indian peasant movements were frequently oriented around kinship, religious relations, or traditional social structures rather than universal human interests or modern class consciousness, they were dismissed as "backward" or "archaic" by traditional historiography.1

In contrast, scholars associated with Subaltern Studies have challenged this classification. They argue that such labels reflect a Eurocentric bias that imposes a linear scale of historical development—ranging from "primitive" to "civilized"—onto non-European cultures. By attempting to rescue the collective agency of these peasants, postcolonial historians seek to recognize alternative forms of sociability and political action that do not rely on the specific language or practices of European modernity.1